Content area
Full Text
Cognitive load theory has been cited by Ofsted and the Department for Education, and is hailed as ‘the single most important thing teachers should know’ – but does it actually translate to the classroom in a way that benefits teachers and pupils? Teacher Alistair McConville investigated, and found that education’s love-in with CLT needs urgent reassessment
Cognitive load theory (CLT) took its time in becoming, in Professor Dylan Wiliam’s words, the “single most important thing for teachers to know”. Focused on working-memory capacity and how we learn, and originating from the work of Professor John Sweller, the theory emerged in the 1980s but tumbled quietly around academic circles for decades, with few schools beyond those involved in field trials getting even a glimpse of it.
Then, around five years ago, education began its very own reformation. No longer were the old idioms taken for granted. New authorities took centre stage to rescue the superstitious and ignorant from their archaic fumblings. An evangelistic fervour grew up around research based on randomised controlled trials (RCT) , and teacher-converts hoarded cognitive psychology papers with the zeal of the faithful.
CLT’s moment had finally arrived. Following Wiliam’s 2017 tweet, mentioned above – “I’ve come to the conclusion Sweller’s cognitive load theory is the single most important thing for teachers to know” – the rise of CLT has been rapid.
Those already conversant in Sweller’s work soon became high priests to the masses, spreading the word from the hilltops of Twitter. Commentaries on the scriptures proliferated. Policymakers, inevitably, became interested, too: in the past 12 months, CLT has received a reverential mention in the summary of the research underpinning Ofsted’s new draft inspection framework, and CLT’s fingerprints were firmly on the new Department for Education Early Career Framework.
Suddenly, teachers are being exhorted to have the “cognitive load” of their students at the forefront of their minds as they minister to their youthful congregations.
But a few vocal sceptics preach abstinence. Discomfited by this new trend – and failing to see its significance for their practice – they cast CLT as pointless, inaccurate, misleading, a fad and a dangerous subversive force.
Amid all this, I was an ill-informed CLT agnostic until Tes set me a task: read all I could...